Criminal Procedure
People of the Philippines v. Victoria Arambulo and Miguelarambulo, Jr.
G.R. No. 186597
June 17, 2015
FACTS:
Records show that respondent Victoria Arambulo, Emerenciana R. Gungab, Reynaldo
Reyes, Domingo Reyes, Rodrigo Reyes and Oscar Reyes are the heirs of Spouses Pedro
Reyes and Anastacia Reyes. Anaped Estate was incorporated as part of the estate planning or
as conduit to hold the properties of the estate of Pedro Reyes for and in behalf of his heirs.
Jose Buban of Anaped Estate, filed a complaint for estafa against Victoria and her
husband Miguel Arambulo, Jr. before the Office of the City Prosecutor. He alleged that
Victoria failed to remit the rentals collected from the time the ownership of the commercial
apartments was transferred to Anaped.
Respondents were then charged with estafa.
Thereafter, respondents filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground of a
prejudicial question in view of the pendency of two intra-corporate cases pending before the
RTC of Quezon City and Makati City. Respondents asserted that the resolution of the SEC
cases in their favor particularly the issues of whether of the group of Rodrigo and Buban are
the lawful representatives of the corporation and whether they are duly authorized to make a
demand for remittance would necessarily result in their acquittal in the criminal case.
The trial court changed denied the motion and set the case for pre-trial. On appeal, the
CA reversed the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether SEC Case No. 05-97-5659 and SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 pose prejudicial
question to the criminal case of estafa
RULING:
SEC Case No. 05-97-5659, NO. SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, YES. A prejudicial
question is one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question
based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it
must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues
raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined.
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes the elements
that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question, to wit:
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of
such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Criminal Procedure
Aptly put, the following requisites must be present for a civil action to be considered
prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the
final resolution of the civil case: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those
upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals, SEC Case No. 05-97-5659 does not
present a prejudicial question to the criminal case for estafa. It is an action for accounting of
all corporate funds and assets of Anaped, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages. Even if said case will be decided against respondents, they will not be adjudged
free from criminal liability. It also does not automatically follow that an accounting of
corporate funds and properties and annulment of fictitious sale of corporate assets would
result in the conviction of respondents in the estafa case.
With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, however, we affirm the Court of Appeals’
finding that a prejudicial question exists. The Complaint in SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 prays
for the nullification of the election of Anaped directors and officers, including Buban.
Essentially, the issue is the authority of the aforesaid officers to act for and behalf of the
corporation.
On the other hand, the issue in the criminal case pertains to whether respondents
committed estafa. Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, the elements of estafa with
abuse of confidence are as follows: (1) that the money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his
part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and (4) that there is demand by the offended party to the offender.
The elements of demand and misappropriation bear relevance to the validity or
invalidity of the authority of Anaped directors and officers. In Omictin v. Court of
Appeals, we held that since the alleged offended party is the corporation, the validity of the
demand for the delivery rests upon the authority of the person making such a demand on the
company’s behalf. If the supposed authority of the person making the demand is found to be
defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence the prosecution for estafa cannot
prosper. The Court added that mere failure to return the thing received for administration or
under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same or deliver the
value thereof to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and does not constitute the
crime of estafa.
It is true that the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315, paragraph
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if the prosecution proves misappropriation or conversion by
the accused of the money or property subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa,
demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. The
phrase, "to misappropriate to one’s own use" has been said to include "not only conversion to
one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right." In this case, the resolution of the issue of misappropriation by respondents
depends upon the result of SEC Case No. 03-99-6259. If it is ruled in the SEC case that the
present Anaped directors and officers were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria may
have every right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban. Hence, the essential element of
misappropriation in estafa may be absent in this case.
Criminal Procedure